Aliosha Bielenberg 11 December 2017 Rethinking the Boundary: Environmental History of the Xiongnu Introduction �e nomadic people of the Eurasian steppe have long been characterized as a fairly homogeneous group of wandering pastoralists. A lifestyle based on livestock that relied heavily on the horse predominated across a vast stretch of land – from Ukraine to Manchuria – for thousands of years. It is undeniable that the activities (including grazing) of these peoples had a substantial impact on the natural environment. Artifacts from across these times and places are indisputably similar, signaling some kind of common culture: what Mikhail Rostovtzeff influentially termed “animal style.”1 Recent research has also revealed how deeply intertwined characterizations of northern nomads are with the sociopolitical context of those who write about them – from the Sinocentrism of Sima Qian to the particular ideological biases of modern writers. Further reflection exposes the underlying and ineluctable problems of writing about a (mostly) non-sedentary and non-literate society. Following from these observations, Anatoly Khazanov influentially argued that the romantic conception of nomads – independent, itinerant people living off the land – ignores the rich history of contact between nomads and sedentary peoples. �inking through this complex historiographical and sociopolitical context is important for any research on Eurasian nomads, particularly the study of contact between nomads and sedentary peoples. What work does exist on 1 Rostovtzeff, The Animal Style in South Russia and China. 1 Aliosha Bielenberg 11 December 2017 this subject has mostly focused on texts about, not by, nomads – that is, sources written by people the nomads often fought. Recent archaeological work, made possible since the dissolution of the USSR, offers a promising foundation for analysis of the regular, continuous, and omnipresent contact of nomads with sedentary peoples. I position this paper within these contexts in order to better understand the environmental history of nomadic contact with sedentary communities. I examine both textual and material evidence to interrogate how contact between nomads and sedentary peoples has impacted the environment. I concentrate on the Xiongnu, positioning my analysis in the general region of Mongolia and northern China. I use Khazanov’s work to challenge the preconceptions of nomads and sedentary peoples as isolated, discrete societies operating in vacuums. I further attempt to identify the biases and motives of historical actors to better interpret my sources. I argue that combining these theoretical approaches with written and material evidence allows for a more nuanced and complete understanding of environmental history. Theoretical background A key work on this subject Anatoly Khazanov’s landmark 1984 book, Nomads and the Outside World. Khazanov presents a synoptic view of pastoral nomadism from antiquity through the present, centered on Eurasia. To approach this vast topic, Khazanov focuses on one particular feature of nomadic life: contact with sedentary peoples. He argues that “nomads could never exist on their own without the outside world and its non-nomadic societies, with their different economic systems.”2 Khazanov recognizes that his view challenges the dominant narrative about the nomads. In fact, Khazanov argues that the dominant historiography – writing about nomads as if 2 Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, 3. 2 Aliosha Bielenberg 11 December 2017 they are isolated, self-sufficient groups – has paradoxically enabled nomads’ continued existence. In his words: “indeed, a nomadic society could only function while the outside world not only existed but also allowed for those reactions from it – reactions which were economic, social, political, cultural, in a word, a multi-faceted response – which ensured that the nomads remained nomads.”3 In short, nomads have not only always been in contact with sedentary peoples, but this contact has been essential to their success. �is recognition is especially important for environmental history. Most evaluations of nomads’ influence on their environment have focused on the impact of pastoralism – for example, grazing as a way to selectively encourage certain kinds of plant growth. Khazanov’s argument does not contradict this analysis, but it does suggest that neglected kinds of activities by the nomads had significant additional impacts on the environment. To understand Khazanov’s work, one must also appreciate the theoretical discussions of “cultural contact” he draws on – and especially the anthropological work of Fredrik Barth.4 In 1969, Barth edited the influential collection of essays Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. In it, Barth brings a “postmodern view of culture” into dialog with the traditional anthropological view of societies: discrete entities tied by primordial bonds of ethnicity. Barth subverts this dominant understanding by prescribing a focus on “the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses.”5 �is is precisely the maxim that Khazanov follows in his work on nomads. Previous theories had analyzed nomadic societies as discrete units. Khazanov instead examines the boundary between nomads and sedentary peoples. �is shift of focus allows for many historical insights into the 3 Ibid. 4 In his acknowledgements, Khazanov expresses his thanks to “Professor Barth.” Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, xxviii. 5 Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, 15. 3 Aliosha Bielenberg 11 December 2017 origins and behavior of Eurasian nomads and, more consequentially, the destabilization of much previous historiography. Barth’s dictum is especially relevant for the environmental history of nomadic-sedentary contact. Traditional scholarship on the environmental history of Eurasian nomads focused on the impact of what is enclosed by the label “nomads”: the discrete group and its influence on the bounded environment it occupies. A shift towards Barth and Khazanov prompts a deeper understanding of environmental history that also encompasses the effects of contact – that is, the boundary. A brief excursus demonstrates how powerful this reconception of the environmental history of pastoral nomadism can be. Khazanov wrote his work in the USSR, where Marxist theory dominated the academy. For traditional Marxist sociology, pastoral nomads pose a particular problem. On the one hand, nomads are attractive because of their cohesion, egalitarianism, and aversion to specialization.6 According to Marxist analysis, these traits appear only when private property is abolished. Yet Soviet scholars agreed that nomads had private ownership of herds “as far back as the first millennium BCE.”7 In short, pastoral nomads problematize Marxist analysis because their attractive traits are incongruous with their individualistic economy. Khazanov’s 1984 work was in part a response to this problem. His focus on the contact between nomadic and sedentary peoples undermined the Marxist analysis of discrete societies. As demonstrated through this brief example, even esoteric arguments about environmental history and pastoral nomadism have the potential to destabilize significantly broader ideologies. 6 Gellner, foreword to Nomads and the Outside World, xii. 7 Ibid. 4 Aliosha Bielenberg 11 December 2017 Written sources Drawing on the theoretical background I have outlined above, I now turn to written sources that document the contact of nomads – and especially the Xiongnu – with more sedentary peoples. �e first source I treat is “�e Account of the Xiongnu,” a chapter from Sima Qian’s Shiji, or Records of the Grand Historian. Sima Qian describes a powerful empire to the north of the Han, characterized by nomadism and reliance on animal husbandry. �e author placed this empire – the Xiongnu – at the periphery of his Sinocentric worldview. Traditional historiography has long followed Sima Qian in emphasizing the dichotomy between the “steppe and the sown.”8 �is division’s most visible expression is the Great Wall of China, which was understood to demarcate the boundary between sedentary, agricultural peoples (the Han) and pastoral, nomadic communities (the Xiongnu). In short, the Great Wall is integral to the symbolic repertory developed by the Chinese to differentiate the “civilized” from the “barbarians” – the nomads from the sedentary. To frame it in Barth’s terms, the Great Wall is the reification of the boundary that dominates traditional anthropology and historiography. �is “master narrative” continues to color our understanding of China’s northern frontier. For example, modern historians often discuss the rise of the Xiongnu as a response to the rise of the Han.9 Addressing similar issues, Sima Qian wrote that “the Xiongnu have been a source of constant worry and harm to China.”10 Some modern writers agree with Sima Qian’s focus on nomadic aggression; others turn this model on its head to instead emphasize Chinese incitement of the Xiongnu. Either way, they continue to react to the model of nomadic–sedentary interaction first articulated in the Shiji. �e environmental history of 8 For discussion, including criticism of unnuanced conceptual frameworks, see Shelach, Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China, 3. 9 See e.g. Marks, China, 84: “Xiongnu wars against the Chinese were in reaction to Chinese aggression.” 10 Sima Qian, “�e Account of the Xiongnu,” 129. 5 Aliosha Bielenberg 11 December 2017 pastoral nomadism is inextricable